Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

I really dont understand the thought process behind the differences in admissions for the ncaa. Non automatic qualifying conferences (bcs) can take people who dont qualify or partially qualify. I thought it was supposed to be student atheletes

Right now, schools have to get NCAA approval for a partial qualifier. Non-qualifiers are not allowed in Division 1. (Don't get caught up in the differing terminology) Some major conferences, such as the SEC & ACC, do not allow this practice. However, the NCAA will allow starting in 2016 schools to accept "partial qualifiers" same as in the old days, where the first year the PQ can pratice only and after 4 years if on track to graduate can apply for a 5th year. It will be up to the invidual conferences to decide how they will enforce it among thier individual memebrs. Some interesting info in the below link.http://koochnation.com/2011/09/29/se...al-qualifiers/

Right now, schools have to get NCAA approval for a partial qualifier. Non-qualifiers are not allowed in Division 1. (Don't get caught up in the differing terminology) Some major conferences, such as the SEC & ACC, do not allow this practice. However, the NCAA will allow starting in 2016 schools to accept "partial qualifiers" same as in the old days, where the first year the PQ can pratice only and after 4 years if on track to graduate can apply for a 5th year. It will be up to the invidual conferences to decide how they will enforce it among thier individual memebrs. Some interesting info in the below link.http://koochnation.com/2011/09/29/se...al-qualifiers/

I'm glad to see the NCAA is gong back to the old rules. It allows a kid to prove himself academically for a year, then be allowed to play in year 2.

I really have mixed feelings about this.
First, it is great to give a kid a chance to prove himself. But did he not have 4 years in High School to do that. In college, you have to mature and take care of your own business. You do not have parents looking over your shoulder.

Second, I have made a lot of mistakes in my life. I am glad I was given second and sometimes third chances.

I really have mixed feelings about this.
First, it is great to give a kid a chance to prove himself. But did he not have 4 years in High School to do that. In college, you have to mature and take care of your own business. You do not have parents looking over your shoulder.

Second, I have made a lot of mistakes in my life. I am glad I was given second and sometimes third chances.

Like I said mixed feelings

I think many kids have a very tough home environment to live in and giving them a chance at college is maybe their only chance to prove they can get it done in the classroom.

People that think the sky is falling and our coaches are awful at their jobs:

Read this. There is more to a football program than recruiting website rankings. Such things like:

Did we fill our needs?
Did we recruit high character kids with a good work ethic?
Did we recruit players that fit the system we run?
Did we develop the guys that were identified as potentially being able to contribute down the line?

5. South Carolina Gamecocks
Average program recruiting rank: 16th
Three-year record as less talented team: 12-6 (.667)
The Gamecocks aren't an obvious candidate to be called an overachiever since Steve Spurrier has been consistently signing top-25 classes since 2009. But six other SEC teams rank ahead of South Carolina in our program recruiting ratings, and annual rival Clemson has a recruiting profile edge, as well. That adds up to 18 games played in the past three seasons in which the Gamecocks lined up against a more talented team, and they've been winning the majority of those showdowns.

South Carolina dominated Georgia last season in a thoroughly convincing 35-7 victory, a win that highlighted the defensive efficiency that has been key in performances against more talented opponents. The Gamecocks ranked fifth in opponent-adjusted defensive efficiency last season and ninth in limiting opponent explosive drives. Georgia was the nation's best in producing explosive drives last year, but superstar defensive lineman Jadeveon Clowney and the rest of the South Carolina defense limited the Bulldogs to 3.3 yards per play, by far their worst performance of the season.

We are not and never will be a Bama, UF, SoCal, or Ohio St - that means we are never going to consistently go all over the country and cherry pick the absolute top talent in the country. Our recipe is keeping the best players home, making good in-person evaluations, and coaching/developing these kids when they get on campus.

Do I wish we got a few kids that decided to go else where? Absolutely but everyone needs to chill out - none of us know more than the coaches do and they are the ones that have this program going in the right direction and now nationally becoming respected.

Re: People that think the sky is falling and our coaches are awful at their jobs:

Agreed. It's not all about filling the board with 4 and 5 star players. They certainly help when you pick them up! But, it's about finding young men who demonstrate character on & off the field...have a solid work ethic...love and can adapt to the culture at Carolina...and fit the system.

Back away from the cliff. No wins or losses are recorded on the recruiting trail.

Re: People that think the sky is falling and our coaches are awful at their jobs:

I think we are getting guys that "get" the opportunity they have before them. Unfortunately a good number of the guys we wanted did not "get it." Not a great recruiting year, not bad, but we'll be fine.